We explored the nature of 37 spatial dimensions in Italian, such as lungo–corto (long–short), inizio–fine (beginning–end), and convergente–divergente (convergent–divergent). In Study 1 we investigated their metric structure. We asked: (1) Are the extensions of the two poles (P ₁ and P ₂) the same? (2) What proportion of each dimension can be said to be neither P ₁ nor P ₂? and (3) Is the extension of P ₁ that can be called neither P ₁ nor P ₂, the same as the extension of P ₂ that can be called neither P ₁ nor P ₂? In Study 2 we investigated the topological structure of the dimensions. We asked: (1) Are the poles, points or ranges? (2) Do intermediates (neither P ₁ nor P ₂) exist? and (3) If they do, are they points or ranges? Two metric properties explained a considerable proportion of the variation in the responses in the first task: (1) the asymmetry of the extension of the two poles and (2) the extension of the “neither–nor” region between them. The results of the topological task further refined the two-dimensional structure obtained in Study 1 to produce a map of spatial opposites. Our methods and the resulting maps provide a point of departure from which two questions can be investigated: (1) If these methods were used in other languages to study spatial opposites, to what extent would they produce similar maps of opposites? and (2) If these methods were applied to nonspatial opposites and maps analogous to our spatial maps were generated, would any dense regions in the nonspatial maps coincide with sparse regions in the spatial maps? We discuss the potential importance of these questions.

We analyse here people's perception of their reflections in mirrors placed in different positions. In two experiments, participants looked at their mirror image, in a third experiment they looked at another person's image. In both cases they were asked to answer a series of questions about how the virtual body appeared relative to the real body, focusing on different aspects. In experiment 1, they were asked to decide whether the reflections were identical, similar, different, or opposite in terms of the global relationship, orientation, and lateralisation (left-right arm). In experiment 2 they were instructed to make simple gestures and to evaluate if the gestures in the reflection were identical, opposite, similar, or different from theirs. Results show that ‘identity’ was preferred when the mirror was in front, and ‘opposition’ was preferred when the mirror was below. When opposition was experienced, it was attributed mainly to the exocentric frame of reference. Egocentric left – right reversal was not a common experience, although it was reported more frequently when the mirror was in front. The different roles of the exocentric and egocentric frames of reference were further tested in experiment 3, in which the condition of an observer looking at another person's reflection was studied. Contrary to the emphasis on the egocentric frame of reference in the literature on the ‘mirror question’, results presented in this paper demonstrate the importance of the exocentric frame of reference in influencing how observers react to their reflections.

This paper contributes to the debate on creativity, art, and artificial intelligence (AI) by integrating insights from cognitive psychology and empirical aesthetics into the field of AI, with the goal of inspiring novel empirical research. We focus on two main topics. First, we examine the indices used in psychology to operationalize creativity in closed-ended and open-ended tasks, with the aim not only of demonstrating the multidimensionality involved in defining creativity, but also of stimulating reflection on the benefits that might arise from developing a similar standard set of indices to test AI scoring models for assessing creativity (of both human and AI-generated responses). Second, we focus on the situation in which the creative products generated by AI are works of art, and on their aesthetic evaluation by non-expert human observers. Bridging the literature developed in psychology of art and empirical aesthetics with the literature on AI, a number of questions emerge, regarding the bias about the “expected style” of AI-generated art, and possible variables that play a role in aversion to AI-generated art. They all suggest possible future empirical research directions.